Re: Comments on Composition and Comportment of the IETF Nominating Committee draft

Hi Mallory,
At 07:03 PM 06-07-2026, Mallory Knodel wrote:
>Certainly but I don't know if the document can or should try to 
>encompass the complexity or simply describe a process for addressing it.
>
>I am open to text suggestions that better elaborate this and any of 
>the comportment sections.

Section 3.1 (b) set a requirement to disclose the conflict to the 
chair.  The practice (outside this community) is to disclose the 
conflict to the entire committee.  The scenario which I mentioned is 
quite straight-forward.  It's not always the case.

I'd say leave in the text for now.  As for the process, I would ask 
whether it is better for it to be a community decision instead of 
something which is suitable for the political convenience of the day.

>Fair. My thinking was to provide some authoritative example of how 
>industry thinks about this. I'm open to citing a better and more 
>relevant publication.

I am not disagreeing with Brian, Joel or you on the points discussed 
in the thread.  I'll use an example which might not be directly 
relevant to the positions being filled.  I am familiar with the 
skills desired for position A.  I can provide input on 
that.  However, it is the committee selecting people which decides 
which skills to look for.  The committee sends out the 
requirements.  The committee then asks each candidate a set of 
questions.  The committee will probably receive a set of rehearsed 
answers.  The committee then reduces the selection pool to a few 
candidates.   It then has to pick one person.  There may be one or 
more persons on the committee who might prefer candidate B or 
C.  Someone decides to skew the outcome.  That's the type of thing I 
would try to catch.

The draft views the committee as a hiring committee.  A hiring 
committee does not ask for community feedback.  It's a nomination 
committee which does that.  There is an assumption that the 
information collected is useful input.  It's not always the case, 
e.g. the committee is not viewed as credible, lack of interest.

I am not suggesting the following as a citation; RFC 7776 (Page 4) 
lists attributes which are not relevant to what the committee is 
expected to do.  Members of the committee are deemed to have read 
that.  I am not suggesting another citation for now as the 
information which I found is not a good fit.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy